So when you look into reasons why this might be happening... it may well come down to poorly designed bureaucracy and a lack of an easy test for the presence of marijuana.

2015, the year that DUI deaths in Washington reached a six-year high -- 258 people killed in crashes involving intoxicated drivers, per data from the Washington Traffic Safety Commission.During the same time, arrests reported by Washington law enforcement agencies fell. In 2015, there were 10,771 fewer DUI arrests than were reported in 2011, according to the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs.“It’s gut wrenching because you know it’s costing folks their lives. Very much so, it’s difficult to take,” said Chief Batiste, who considers DUI enforcement to be WSP’s top priority.WSP says a steady decline in the number of troopers on the road, and the increased time it takes troopers to process DUI cases, is what is behind the dwindling arrest numbers.Batiste says the increase in drugged driving has played a big part in tying troopers up with administrative paperwork.“It can take you up to four or five hours, in some instances, to process and individual for driving under the influence of drugs. Whereas before, with alcohol, you can get that done in about an hour,” said Batiste.Drug cases require a warrant, signed by a judge, for the required blood draw. And then the officer must drive the suspect to a hospital to allow medical staff to obtain a sample of their blood.WSP is working with Lakewood police on a pilot program to speed up the blood draw process. Lakewood officers have received medical training that allows them to draw blood themselves, eliminating time-consuming trips to the hospital.WSP is also developing a software program designed to let troopers avoid the redundant paperwork that they must fill out for each DUI case.“There could be up to 16 different forms that you may have to use for one DUI investigation,” said Lt. Rob Sharpe, who heads WSP’s Impaired Driving Section.

In Spain adn Australia there is an oral fluids test that is done on the sport, like a breathalyzer. Once that is widely used in North America, things should change.

really? Because fundamentally nothing starts till attitudes change. It was the attitude towards civil rights that changed BEFORE the laws changed.It was the attitude towards gay marriage that changed before the laws changed.It was the attitude towards drinking driving that changed before society got serious about laws and enforcement.Today, finally, attitudes seem to be changing about sexual harassment of women. If young people have a different attitude towards gun laws than their parents, it portends change. Government almost always lags popular support - especially in the US with a political system dependent on corporate donors and lobbyists, like the NRA.

Do more guns = more gun deaths?No. Because guns are not dangerous without a person willing to pull the trigger.

And cars are not dangerous till someone gets behind the wheel. They are both inanimate objects. Good spot there.

People recognized long ago that cars could be designed more safely. That drivers should be qualified and educated. That regulations, laws and subsequent enforcement should restrict people who would be dangerous behind a wheel from getting there... The requirement for insurance and the high cost to a driver of being involved in an accident made people more responsible. Law suits against car manufacturers and enforced regulation helped make vehicles safer.... There is no question that following the same proven course would reduce gun violence. And there would be fewer guns in the hands of people because not everyone who currently has them, should. Including: Mentally incompetent people. People with domestic violence convictions, peace bonds or restraining orders. Those who can't pass safety tests. Those who can get liability insurance. Those under suicide watch. And the guns owned would be less lethal. Because semi automatic rifles like AR15s represent a risk in the same fashion a race car is not allowed on public streets...

really? Because fundamentally nothing starts till attitudes change. It was the attitude towards civil rights that changed BEFORE the laws changed.It was the attitude towards gay marriage that changed before the laws changed.It was the attitude towards drinking driving that changed before society got serious about laws and enforcement.Today, finally, attitudes seem to be changing about sexual harassment of women. If young people have a different attitude towards gun laws than their parents, it portends change. Government almost always lags popular support - especially in the US with a political system dependent on corporate donors and lobbyists, like the NRA.

Just stop it. Obviously, the number of deaths caused by DUI since 1981 would be affected by other factors, like safety equipment in cars, that have NOTHING to do with "changing attitudes" toward drunk driving.

Comparing drunk driving to civil rights, etc., is just idiotic.

Do more guns = more gun deaths?No. Because guns are not dangerous without a person willing to pull the trigger.

And cars are not dangerous till someone gets behind the wheel. They are both inanimate objects. Good spot there.

And, when "drunken shooting" starts becoming a thing, you'll have a point besides the one on your head.

Law suits against car manufacturers and enforced regulation helped make vehicles safer.... There is no question that following the same proven course would reduce gun violence.

Nope.

Criminals use cars without killing people. They don't use guns without killing. You're just being dopey.

And, when "drunken shooting" starts becoming a thing, you'll have a point besides the one on your head

It is a thing jack ass.

Although the misuse of firearms is necessary to the occurrence of firearm violence, there are other contributing factors beyond simply firearms themselves that might also be modified to prevent firearm violence. Alcohol is one such key modifiable factor. To explore this, we undertook a 40-year (1975–2014) systematic literature review with meta-analysis. One large group of studies showed that over one third of firearm violence decedents had acutely consumed alcohol and over one fourth had heavily consumed alcohol prior to their deaths. Another large group of studies showed that alcohol was significantly associated with firearm use as a suicide means. Two controlled studies showed that gun injury after drinking, especially heavy drinking, was statistically significant among self-inflicted firearm injury victims.

And, when "drunken shooting" starts becoming a thing, you'll have a point besides the one on your head

It is a thing jack ass.

Although the misuse of firearms is necessary to the occurrence of firearm violence, there are other contributing factors beyond simply firearms themselves that might also be modified to prevent firearm violence. Alcohol is one such key modifiable factor. To explore this, we undertook a 40-year (1975–2014) systematic literature review with meta-analysis. One large group of studies showed that over one third of firearm violence decedents had acutely consumed alcohol and over one fourth had heavily consumed alcohol prior to their deaths. Another large group of studies showed that alcohol was significantly associated with firearm use as a suicide means. Two controlled studies showed that gun injury after drinking, especially heavy drinking, was statistically significant among self-inflicted firearm injury victims.

So once again, evidence that drinking and gun violence are linked is disputed by you because the evidence isn't exclusively about American drunks shooting themselves and others?The study also indicates that drunks shoot other people on purpose and by accident. Impulse control being more difficult for people under the influence. But you are right, this isn't new... In Tombstone, Wyatt Earp confiscated all the guns from cowboys coming in to town primarily because drunks aren't safe with guns. Since it seems reasonable that drunk drivers lose their license to drive, shouldn't it also be reasonable that they lose their weapons? They've demonstrated they can't be trusted with cars ... Why should they then be trusted with something who's purpose is to kill ?

So once again, evidence that drinking and gun violence are linked is disputed by you because the evidence isn't exclusively about American drunks shooting themselves and others?The study also indicates that drunks shoot other people on purpose and by accident. Impulse control being more difficult for people under the influence. But you are right, this isn't new... In Tombstone, Wyatt Earp confiscated all the guns from cowboys coming in to town primarily because drunks aren't safe with guns. Since it seems reasonable that drunk drivers lose their license to drive, shouldn't it also be reasonable that they lose their weapons? They've demonstrated they can't be trusted with cars ... Why should they then be trusted with something who's purpose is to kill ?

You don’t make reasoned arguments. Here’s rickyp style:

Someone argues “a.”

Rickyp responds with a broader article that argues “a, b, c.”

Someone argues “b, c” don’t prove “a.”

Rickyp responds with “are you disputing b and c?”

The next thing you know, the argument is about the link between drinking and suicide in Finland.

And because we've reduced drunken driving considerably ..... surely there is a lesson to be learned about drunken shooting. Which is, take guns away from drunks the same way you take cars away from drunks. Surely that makes sense.

There are a myriad of others, I am sure. My point is that you are attempting to tie the legislation of guns to the same rules as a DUI.

Until there is legislation showing you can bring forth showing that operation of a firearm whilst under the influence of alcohol or narcotics is a crime, your point is moot.

Drunken copulation if forced is called rape (a crime)Drunken tweeting could be slander (a crime)Drunken fighting is assault (a crime)Drunken marriage vows is not a crime, but can be unenforceable due to diminished capacity.

My point is not that the drunkenness is a problem, but what you do with the time that you are drunk is a problem. If you commit a crime while drunk, be punished. If you commit a crime while having a gun, be punished.

It is not the gun, or the alcohol. It is the action. You keep trying to reduce the side issues, and not dealing with the real problem.

And because we've reduced drunken driving considerably ..... surely there is a lesson to be learned about drunken shooting. Which is, take guns away from drunks the same way you take cars away from drunks. Surely that makes sense.

Oh, good night!

You've run into a dead end alley and your answer is to keep running your head into a brick wall!

Let's see . . . how many people do you suppose go out drinking and get sloshed, then pop over to the gun store, or produce a concealed gun and start shooting, or do anything?

Until there is legislation showing you can bring forth showing that operation of a firearm whilst under the influence of alcohol or narcotics is a crime, your point is moot

Legislation? Its already a law ... from the story in Georgia I quoted ...

BSCO Chief Deputy Jared Akins said investigators processed the scene and conducted multiple interviews with other tenants of the apartment. At the conclusion of the investigation, Coleton Weatherford, 20, was taken into custody and charged with involuntary manslaughter, reckless conduct and discharging a firearm while under the influence.

bbauska

It is not the gun, or the alcohol. It is the action. You keep trying to reduce the side issues, and not dealing with the real problem.

The real problem is easy access to guns, by irresponsible people. As noted, its already to illegal to discharge a firearm while under the influence. If you drive while under the influence you lose the use of your car. And worse.If you discharge a firearm under the influence shouldn't you also lose the right to own guns?

fate

Let's see . . . how many people do you suppose go out drinking and get sloshed, then pop over to the gun store, or produce a concealed gun and start shooting, or do anything?

Plenty. Alcohol reduces inhibitions and impulse control.

Alcohol is involved in more homicides across the United States compared to other substances, like heroin and cocaine. In fact, about 40 percent of convicted murderers had used alcohol before or during the crime. Excessive drinking can lead to more severe forms of violence that can quickly escalate to extremely dangerous situations. The short- and long-term effects of alcohol blur a person’s mental state, contributing to an increased risk of committing violent crimes. There are strict legal punishments in place for homicide convictions and can land you in jail for many years, or even the rest of your life.

first link below. And most homicides involve guns... second link below.

And older men tend to do so with guns. If the impulse is easier to resist, because a easily pulled trigger on a gun isn't available, there would be fewer suicides.Would that not be a good thing. Shouldn't responsible people take guns away from a household where there is someone struggling with depression? There are 4 States where that is currently possible.... BTW.